PANKAJ DOSAJ Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order of framing of charge dated 4-10-2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No. 29/2005 whereby the charges under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against the applicants.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the applicants are the owners of Care English School, Chhatarpur. The complainant Smt. Indrapal Bhatia was working as a Teacher in that school. Her services were terminated. She lodged F.I.R. wherein it was alleged that she has not tendered resignation and false document has been prepared. The offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicants. The documents were examined by State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of M.P., Jahangirabad, Bhopal. Report of Handwriting Expert received. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chhatarpur. The Court below after hearing the arguments and on perusal of the documents framed the charge against the applicants as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.

(3.) Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the complainant Smt. Indrapal Bhatia joined in the Care English School on 19-8-1990 and her services were terminated on 26-8-1998. The applicants were empowered to terminate her services. No fault can be found in terminating her services. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence is; that the false document was prepared but by that the offences charged are not made out. For framing the charge under section 420 of Indian Penal Code there must be element of deceiving by fraudulently or dishonestly or inducing the person to deliver the property. No such elements have been shown in this case. Prima facie there is no evidence to frame such charges hence the Court below has committed an illegality in framing charge against them, which deserves to be quashed.